[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?

[kraythe .]

*Java as a language is big and complex, because it has a lot of concepts
> directly inside the language.*



Ahh but here you are wrong. Java itself is analogous to Erlang without OTP.
you don't HAVE to use the JDK libraries beyond java.lang. You would be a
bit crazy reproducing the wheel if you did so but it is not a requirement
of writing java. In fact many Java controlled micro devices only allow a
very small subset of the JDK to be used. So there is essentially no
difference.

So Elang is to Java as the Java Development Kit is to the Open Telecom
Platform. And there is where we have the "marketing" disconnect. Its not
about changing functionality or a triviality to be scoffed over. If we
start with the premise that we want more developers to learn and use Erlang
then we have to consider how the language and its nomenclature comes across
to our audience. You don't name a language the Scalable High Integration
Technology because the impression it leaves with adopters is ...
unfortunate.

So if you DON'T care about people adopting the language, then the
discussion is academic and simply, as one reply put it, a waste of time. Of
course if you don't care about adoption then you are wasting your time here
because you wont be able to staff a development crew, replace developers
that leave or push the language into an organization which isn't currently
using it.

If you DO care about people adopting the language you have to consider its
marketing. If I many were to take Erlang to management and propose it for a
product the management would see "Open Telecom Platform", object that the
company isn't a telecom company and that Erlang is mainly for telecom and
that would be the end of that.  In fact, if you really care about adoption
you are better off renaming it "Fred" than leaving it as "Open Telecom
Platform".

Naming matters and it is also pretty easy to fix.

*Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
*Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)*
*LinkedIn: **http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39
<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39>*


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED> wrote:

> That's a *HUGE* difference. Erlang as a language is very small; OTP is a
> very complex piece of software, as is BEAM. The three shouldn't be
> conflated.
>
> Java as a language is big and complex, because it has a lot of concepts
> directly inside the language.
>
> --
> Anthony Ramine
>
> Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:59, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> a écrit :
>
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >> Java without OOP is a different language.
> >> Erlang without OTP is still Erlang.
> >
> > IMHO the only difference is that OTP is implemented as a library and
> > doesn't have dedicated language syntax. I make difference between OTP
> > as design/system building guidelines and its implementation. The
> > former is more like OOP for Java. The latter is more like the JDK.
> >
> > /Vlad
> >
> >> --
> >> Anthony Ramine
> >>
> >> Le 13 févr. 2014 à 15:21, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> a écrit
> :
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >>>> I also say Erlang/OTP and often I add to the one that ask that OTP is
> >>>> a framework, but then people are more puzzled than they were before.
> >>>> Maybe rust did the right things by  clearly separating the language
> >>>> and the runtime from the standard library and other libs ?
> >>>
> >>> I would say that OTP is to Erlang what OOP is to Java. You can write
> >>> Java programs that are not object-oriented, but why choose Java for
> >>> that in the first place?
> >>>
> >>> OTP is in my opinion a design philosophy that guides us when it comes
> >>> to structuring and developing distributed fault-tolerant systems. It
> >>> comes with library support that is intimately tied to the Erlang
> >>> libraries: the most basic Erlang apps (kernel and stdlib) are also the
> >>> ones that implement the OTP concepts. Even more, Erlang code is
> >>> structured as applications, and an "application" is an OTP concept!
> >>>
> >>> I can only see meaning in trying to separate the language from OTP
> >>> either as an academic exercise or in order to implement a different
> >>> language on the beam runtime and the new concepts would collide
> >>> implementation-wise with OTP. Or one wants to create OTP 2.0 without
> >>> interference with 1.0.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> Vlad
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> erlang-questions mailing list
> >>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140213/6158710c/attachment.htm>